AVIATION

ISSN 1648-7788 / eISSN 1822-4180

2015 Volume 19(2): 78–82
doi:10.3846/16487788.2015.1057993

CIVIL AND MILITARY AIRWORTHINESS CHALLENGES IN ASIA

Chow Vi THIAN
School of Aerospace Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
E-mail: s3161423@student.rmit.edu.au

Received 12 March 2014; accepted 8 May 2015

Chow Vi THIAN
Date of birth: 1988
Education: 2007–2010 – Bachelor of Applied Science (Aviation), RMIT University, School
of Aerospace Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering.
Affiliations and functions: since 2007, Member of the Royal Aeronautical Society, since
2013, Member of the Flight Safety Foundation.
Research interests: the effects of growth on the aviation industry in the Asia-Pacific region.
Present position: since 2011 Senior Associate for Technical Affairs at the Association of
Asia Pacific Airlines.

Abstract. Aviation is one of the most regulated industries in the world. The massive expansion and growth of
aviation in the South-East Asia region has brought up many challenges in ensuring airworthiness of aircraft, both in
the civil and military aviation domain. These challenges not only affect the safe operations of aircraft but also result in
various issues in the areas of cost, infrastructure, human capital and resources. From the point of view of civil aviation,
local authorities in the region have taken several initiatives to tackle these challenges, based on the foundations laid
out by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). When it comes to military aviation, agencies, such as the
Directorate General Technical Airworthiness (DGTA) of Malaysia, have initiated the regulation of the compliance of
military aircraft operations. There has also been an increased focus on awareness of the importance of airworthiness
and safety as well as the development of a risk-based approach which is both proactive and cost-efficient.
Keywords: civil aviation, military aviation, airworthiness, engineering challenges Asia-Pacific region.

1. Introduction
Airworthiness is a process during which an aircraft is
deemed suitable for safe flight. In the aviation industry
(both civil and military), the airworthiness of an aircraft
is highly regulated and operators of aircraft are bound
by very specific regulations to ensure the airworthiness
of their aircraft (De Florio 2011). The International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), as an independent
body, under the governing powers of the United Na-
tions, drives most of the current civil aviation regulat-
ory framework by setting international standards as well
as providing recommendations to all contracting states.
ICAO defines airworthiness as all processes that ensure
that any given aircraft in its operation lifecycle complies
with technical conditions bound by the Certificate of
Airworthiness issued by a contracting state to ensure
safe operations.
Through ICAO Standards and Recommended Prac-
tices (SARPs), ICAO aims to harmonize the safety regu-
lation of civil aviation around the world. However, ICAO
SARPs are only applicable to countries signatory to the
1944 Chicago Convention and only to civil aircraft oper-
ations (ICAO 2006). ICAO SARPs are to be executed by
an individual nation’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
In the military domain, there is no complementary
international organization providing the same ICAO-
type standardization of military aviation regulations;
hence, there is less public information and exposure to
how military airworthiness is regulated, primarily due
to the sensitivities and nature of military aircraft oper-
ations (Purton, Kourousis 2013). It is worth noting that
currently there is no overarching Military Airworthiness
Authority (MAA) across different countries. However,

Copyright © 2015 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press

http://www.tandfonline.com/TAVI
Aviation, 2015, 19(2): 78–82
there are some countries that have adopted an overarch-
ing authority that regulates military aircraft operation in
the broad sense (design, engineering, maintenance, flight
operations). In most cases, this authority is embedded in
the Air Force as a division, but there are also examples of
nations that have independent airworthiness authorities
reporting directly to the Ministry of Defense or similar.
There is also a growing acceptance of military airworthi-
ness regulations being streamlined and harmonised with
the civil regulatory requirements, especially in nations
that have shared airspace and shared aerodrome opera-
tions (Purton et al. 2014a, 2014b, 2014c).
Aircraft airworthiness is undoubtedly very import-
ant in ensuring the safe operation of aircraft. All civil and
military aircraft are required to comply with the airwor-
thiness standards set by their state airworthiness author-
ity (Civil Aviation Authority or Military) and through-
out their operational life must be in a condition of safe
operation. Aviation accident data shows that over 20%
of all fatal accidents in aviation are due to airworthiness
issues, specifically aircraft mechanical failures (Trew
et al. 2013). Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each re-
gistered operator to ensure that their aircraft remain in
a condition of safe operation, and this is done through
both effective management of airworthiness activities
and effective programme governance of safety outcomes.
2. Background
The Asian aviation environment has experienced a very
large boom in recent years due to a rising middle-in-
come segment and the establishment of low cost carri-
ers. The number of aircraft in the region has also been
steadily increasing year by year, with Asian airlines set-
ting records for the largest aircraft orders in history. In
2012, within the whole Asia-Pacific region over 948 mil-
lion passengers have been carried , which accounts for
30% of global traffic with more than 5,000 aircraft. It is
forecast that this number will grow by at least 5% every
year (Herdman 2013).
In the military segment, analysts have forecast that
the Asia-Pacific region will experience growth in new air-
craft procurement as the region is largely insulated from
the economic situation that has impacted North Amer-
ica and Europe, which results in a constant growth in
Asia-Pacific economies. Increasing government budgets
are also a driving force for both new aircraft purchases
and modification plans that can potentially shift the mil-
itary balance in the region (Frost & Sullivan 2013).
All this growth has led to an increased challenge
for regulators and airworthiness authorities in ensur-
ing aircraft airworthiness and safety. The rise of com-
mercialisation of military aircraft and operations has
also brought about new challenges in the defence sec-
tor, with the military keen to bridge the gap between
79
military airworthiness standards and civilian airworthi-
ness standards.
There are many guidelines in the civil aviation seg-
ment when it comes to regulating airworthiness. To
ensure consistent global standards, Civil Aviation Au-
thorities (CAAs) of nations that are subscribed to the
Chicago Convention have to adhere to a minimum set
of regulations defined by ICAO. Throughout the years,
ICAO has been constantly reviewing these regulations in
line with the development and growth of civil aviation
not only in Asia but worldwide.
The military aviation segment is not able to adopt
the same principles laid out by civil aviation due to the
nature of its operations and elevated levels of risk in-
volved. Military aircraft deal with non-procedural mis-
sions and carry explosive ordinances, which significantly
increases the risks of operations, preventing the milit-
ary from adopting civil aviation regulations as a whole.
However, sovereign authorities have the right to ensure
that their military aircraft are compliant with civilian re-
quirements when flying or operating in another nation’s
airspace or when operating in civilian airspace.
3. Current state in Asia
ICAO reports that during the period 2006–2010 14%
of commercial flight accidents were due to component
or power failures and classifies them under airworthi-
ness issues. Currently, almost all Asian nations set their
own airworthiness standards based on ICAO standards
and recommendations. However, this is not without its
challenges. It can be said that civil and military airwor-
thiness authorities face different challenges but overall
there are more similarities than differences.
Rapid aviation growth and expansion in Asia has
proved to be a challenge for regulators. As more aircraft
take to the skies, regulators are faced with issues such as
resource constraints, lack of human capital, inadequate
training and commercial pressures.
In most developing nations in Asia, the budget al-
located to CAAs is very much dependent on a nation’s
economic ability. In 2008, The Philippines Civil Aviation
Authority (CAAP) has seen the United States Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) downgrade the nation’s
rating from category 1 to category 2 upon recommenda-
tion from ICAO. The downgrade to category 2 indicates
that the FAA has assessed that the CAAP has failed to
comply with ICAO safety standards for the oversight of
air carrier operations (FAA 2013). Although not publicly
stated, the failure to comply to SARPs has been blamed
on the lack of funds and financial resources due to the
economic crisis experienced by the country in 2007
(Eran-Tasker 2013).
Training is a crucial factor for ensuring that air-
worthiness inspectors are able to perform their tasks
80
with a high level of proficiency The challenge en-
countered in Asia is the situation when the time re-
quired to train personnel cannot match the number of
aircraft that are used. This is evident in countries such
as Malaysia and Indonesia, where the growing low cost
market has seen aircraft being delivered from Toulouse
and Seattle almost every week. The Department of Civil
Aviation (DCA) Malaysia and the Directorate of Civil
Aviation (DGCA) Indonesia has been recruiting per-
sonnel in numbers however the time taken to get fresh
employees up to speed cannot match the number of air-
craft delivered (Chew 2013).
4. Probable and active solutions
ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
(USOAP)
The ICAO USOAP was established to allow the
ICAO Safety Oversight Section to conduct aviation
safety oversight audits in an effort to identify deficien-
cies and encourage their resolution. Launched in 2006,
USOAP utilises audits to promote global aviation safety
in all ICAO Contracting States.
The objective set out by USOAP is to encourage the
promotion of aviation safety through regular audits of
Contracting States to determine a state’s capability for
safety oversight. This is done by assessing the effective
implementation of a state’s execution of ICAO SARPs,
critical elements of safety oversight, guidance material,
safety-related procedures and associated practices.
ICAO Annex 8  – Airworthiness of Aircraft  – was
a key element of the initial USOAP programme and the
initial mandate of the programme was to hold an audit
for all Contracting States and report to the subsequent
session of the ICAO General Assembly every 3 years.
Audit follow-ups were then carried out to validate the
implementation of the corrective action plans, to identify
any other problems associated with the implementation,
and to determine if any external assistance is needed to
a State.
Looking ahead, a new approach has been embed-
ded into the ICAO USOAP to promote global aviation
safety by empowering Contracting States’ safety over-
sight capabilities. This is achieved through a risk-based
approach by continuous monitoring of safety perform-
ance in order to identify safety deficiencies, assess associ-
ated safety risks, and to implement mitigation strategies
to minimise these risks.
The ICAO 2013 Safety Report found that the ma-
jority of Asian nations have effectively implemented
ICAO SARPs above the global average of 61%, with the
Republic of Korea achieving the highest score of 99%,
based on USOAP audit results as of December 31, 2012.
The global audit results of the effective implementation
of safety oversight assesses airworthiness as 73%, the
Ch. V. Thian. Civil and military airworthiness challenges in Asia
highest among all technical areas as shown in the Figure
1 below.
Fig. 1. Global USOAP Audit Results, Effective Implementation
of Safety Oversight according to Technical Area in 2012
(adapted from ICAO 2013)
The European Union (EU) common airworthiness
framework, namely the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), has been an exemplary solution for regulating
aviation safety, not only within Europe but at a global
level (EASA 2015). Since its inception, this framework
has allowed for a harmonised development of regula-
tions and implementation of aviation safety rules across
various nations. This has contributed not only to the im-
provement of aviation safety records but has also enabled
greater collaboration between nations in the develop-
ment and accomplishment of major aeronautical invest-
ments and new products (e.g. Airbus export success is
attributed partly to EASA regulations and management
of the airworthiness product certification process). Many
Asian nations have adopted this best practice by mirror-
ing the philosophy and structure of the EASA airwor-
thiness system in practice. Clear advantages and benefits
arising out of this support have driven these changes and
today EASA is playing a vital role in influencing and for-
mulating the operation of the aviation industry in this
key region of the globe. Some examples of Asian coun-
tries that have adapted their airworthiness requirements
and regulations to the EASA system are provided below
(focusing on the aircraft maintenance personnel licens-
ing regime, EASA Part 66 Regulation, which is one of the
safety critical areas for aviation regulation):
–– India: the Directorate General of Civil Aviation
(DGCA), Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) 66 for
Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) licensing;
–– Hong Kong: the Civil Aviation Department
(CAD) Hong Kong Aviation Requirements
(HKAR) 66 for Aircraft Maintenance Licensing
(AML);
–– Malaysia: the Department of Civil Aviation
(DCA) DCAM Part-66 for Aircraft Maintenance
License (AML);
–– Singapore: the Civil Aviation Authority of Singa-
pore (CAAS) Airworthiness Requirement Part 66
for Aircraft Maintenance Licensing (AML).
Aviation, 2015, 19(2): 78–82
Collaboration
As the civil aviation segment is more open and global,
several nations have benefitted through collaboration
and improved their airworthiness enforcement capab-
ilities through expert guidance from countries that are
well advanced in their airworthiness programmes. Here
are some examples:
The European Union – China Civil Aviation Project
(EUCCAP)
The EUCCAP is a technical assistance project partner-
ship between the European Union and the Government
of the People’s Republic of China with the beneficiary
being the Civil Aviation Administration of China
(CAAC) (STI China 2014). This project begun in 2004
and aims to support the CAAC through capacity build-
ing, training, sharing of best practices and streamlining
of civil aviation regulations and standards regarding
safety, including airworthiness, in relation to interna-
tional standards.
In the area of airworthiness, the EUCCAP has de-
veloped the “train-the-trainers” programme that dir-
ectly addresses capacity constraints in the Chinese civil
aviation sector in the area of safety management and
airworthiness oversight. Training then can be provided
through accredited training programmes in coopera-
tion with civil aviation universities around China, al-
lowing for a larger pool of airworthiness inspectors, in-
line with the growing number of aircraft operations in
the region.
Indonesia Directorate General of Civil Aviation
(DGCA) – Australia Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA)
Since 2007, Australia has been working closely with In-
donesia on aviation safety issues under the Australian
Government funded programme Indonesia Transport
Safety Assistance Package (ITSAP).
The purpose of ITSAP is to assist Indonesia in reg-
ulating and promoting aviation safety in line with inter-
national standards and recommendations as well as con-
ventional safety management practices, consistent with
the priorities of the Indonesian Government.
The support provided to Indonesia is in accordance
with a memorandum of understanding and cooperation
in the transport sector between the governments of Aus-
tralia and Indonesia, with each country recognising the
impact of collaboration between the two neighbours.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia
(CASA) has played a key role in the delivery of the IT-
SAP programme. This includes provision of extens-
ive technical training, safety promotion and assistance
with development of regulation and guidance material
(McCormick 2013).
81
CASA also works closely with the Indonesian Dir-
ectorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on key safety
oversight issues for Indonesia, such as development of
a consistent framework for enforcing airworthiness as
well as other aspects, certification of the new Indonesian
single air navigation service provider and delivering of
safety promotion workshops on continuing airworthi-
ness, runway excursions and mountainous terrain oper-
ations (CASA 2013).
Military Airworthiness Authorities (MAA)
Although there is no global common guidance in the
military domain, nations can take a page out of civil
collaboration highlighted above. Such examples are
already evident in Western military powers such as the
militaries of the United States, Canada, the United King-
dom, France and Australia. These nations participate in
global forums aimed at establishing common regulat-
ory ground that allows them to share their airworthi-
ness principles and some of their relevant strengths and
weaknesses.
Another platform for collaboration on military air-
worthiness issues is the Military Airworthiness Author-
ities Forum (MAWA). MAWA was established under
the banner of the European Defence Agency (EDA), of
the European Union (EU), and is focused on “Building
upon the foundations of military airworthiness harmon-
isation in order to realise future benefits” (EDA 2013).
The Forum brings together 95 military airworthiness
experts from European Member States, governmental
organisations, aerospace industry and the European Avi-
ation Safety Agency as well as representatives from the
Asia-Pacific region such as the Republic of Korea and
Singapore.
Individually, nations can regulate airworthiness in
the military domain through an independent overarch-
ing body that has oversight over the aircraft operated by
a nation’s armed forces (Purton et al. 2014b, 2014c).
Malaysia Directorate General Technical
Airworthiness (DGTA)
The Malaysian Government recognised the need to have
an independent organisation to oversee airworthiness
for non-civil state registered aircraft. The establishment
of the DGTA authorises this agency to become a state
agency responsible for regulating the technical airwor-
thiness of state-registered aircraft (DGTA 2015). The
DGTA is also responsible for implementing a manage-
ment system for operational airworthiness and technical
airworthiness.
The establishment of DGTA provides a manage-
ment system and regulatory framework for state tech-
nical airworthiness, which is achieved based on its role
as a Technical Airworthiness Authority (TAA) and Tech-
nical Airworthiness Regulator (TAR) (DGTA 2015).
82 Ch. V. Thian. Civil and military airworthiness challenges in Asia
5. Conclusions
Aviation is a very dynamic industry with fast, wide-
spread changes over time. The Asian region has experi-
enced wide-spread growth on monumental levels never
seen before, which has proved to be challenging for air-
worthiness inspectors and regulators in the civil aviation
area. The influx of operating aircraft in the region has
also resulted in challenges in ensuring airworthiness and
regulating continued airworthiness, and its impact on
aviation safety. This growth has also affected the military
aviation sector, with the military balance in the region
constantly shifting amid heightened tensions.
With every challenge, comes a solution and col-
laboration between different regulatory organisations is
one of those solutions. Collaboration is vital for learning
about best practices and there is no better way of learn-
ing that to learn from an organisation that has executed
those practices safely and efficiently. The sharing of in-
formation is a very powerful tool that paves the way for a
much safer industry. Such collaborations have evidently
had successful outcomes as displayed by the likes of the
mirroring of the EASA system by many Asian countries,
as well as the EUCCAP and the CASA-DGCA partner-
ship. ICAO has also played a crucial role in consolidating
international standards regarding airworthiness regula-
tions by providing individual states with recommenda-
tions and more importantly guidance on regulations that
shape safety.
Military airworthiness authorities also have the op-
portunity to collaborate, especially with allies and stra-
tegic partners. This enhances current military airworthi-
ness regulations and further brings military regulations
closer to civil requirements. Although the risks involved
in military operations do not allow civil regulations to be
adopted as a whole, there are more commonalities than
differences, and this is especially important to ensure the
safe operations of all aircraft in airspace or at aerodromes
where both civil and military aircraft share operations.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the valuable feed-
back received from Dr Kyriakos I. Kourousis, Senior
Lecturer in Aircraft Maintenance & Airworthiness.
References
Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia (CASA). 2013. Ex-
ternal engagement. CASA Annual Report 2011–12 [online],
[cited 1 May 2015]. Available from Internet: http://www.
casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:p
c=PC_101124
Chew, L.  L.  2013. Personal interview given on 18 December
2013. Department of Civil Aviation Malaysia.
De Florio, F. 2011 Airworthiness: an introduction to aircraft
certification. UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-096802-5.10002-9
Directorate General Technical Airworthiness (DGTA). 2015.
About us: Background [online], [cited 1 May 2015]. Avail-
able from Internet: http://www.dgta.gov.my
Eran-Tasker, M. 2013. Personal interview given on 20 December
2013. Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA).
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). 2015 [online],
[cited 1 May 2015]. Available from Internet: https://www.
easa.europa.eu/the-agency
European Defence Agency (EDA). 2013. Military airworthi-
ness [online], [cited 7 May 2015]. Available from Internet:
http://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/eda-public-
ations/military-airworthiness_web
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2013. International
Aviation Safety Assessments (IASA) Program [online], [cited
1 May 2015]. Available from Internet: http://www.faa.gov/
about/initiatives/iasa/
Frost & Sullivan. 2013. North America diminishing in import-
ance for the global fixed-wing military aircraft market, notes
Frost & Sullivan. Global Fixed Wing Military Aircraft
NC82-16. Frost & Sullivan.
Herdman, A. 2013. Asia Pacific Aviation: challenges and op-
portunities, in Presentation to AAPA 57th Assembly of
Presidents, November 2013, Hong Kong [online], [cited 1
May 2015]. Available on Internet: http://www.aapairlines.
org/resource_centre/AAPA_SP_AP57_DG_Presenta-
tion_15Nov13.pdf
International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). 2006. Con-
vention on International Civil Aviation – Doc 7300 [online],
[cited 7 May 2015]. Available from Internet: http://www.
icao.int/publications/pages/doc7300.aspx
International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). 2013.
Safety Report [online], [cited 7 May 2015]. Available from
Internet: http://www.icao.int/safety/documents/icao_2013-
safety-report_final.pdf
McCormick, J. 2013. Working in collaboration to enhance avi-
ation safety, in Safety in Aviation – Asia Conference 2013,
7–8 May 2013, Singapore [online], [cited 1 May 2015].
Available from Internet: http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/
nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101454
Purton, L.; Kourousis, K. 2013. Military airworthiness manage-
ment frameworks: a critical review, Procedia Engineering 80:
545–564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.09.111
Purton,  L.; Clothier,  R.; Kourousis, K. 2014a. Assessment of
technical airworthiness in military aviation: implementa-
tion and further advancement of the Bow-tie model, Pro-
cedia Engineering 80: 529–544.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.09.110
Purton,  L.; Kourousis,  K.; Clothier,  R.; Massey, K. 2014b.
Mutual recognition of national military airworthiness au-
thorities: a streamlined assessment process, International
Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sicences 15(1): 54–62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5139/IJASS.2014.15.1.54
Purton, L.; Clothier, R.; Kourousis, K.; Massey, K. 2014c. The
PBP Bow-tie framework for the systematic representation
and comparison of military regulatory frameworks, The
Aeronautical Journal 118(1210): 1433–1452.
STI China. 2014. Science, technology and innovation perform-
ance of China: D9, Final Report [online], [cited 7 May
2015]. Available from Internet: http://eeas.europa.eu/
delegations/china/documents/eu_china/research_innova-
tion/4_innovation/sti_china_study_full_report.pdf
Trew,  T.; Trigunarsyah,  B.; Coffey, V. 2013 Organizational
culture in airworthiness management programmes:
extending an existing measurement model, Engineering
Project Organisational Journal 3(3): 154–167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2013.772509